21 3. Judge Pauffley failed to apply the law and do justice to the parties involved

I am writing to make the following complaints regarding Judge Pauffley’s recent judgement (Case Number: [2015] EWFC 26 (Fam) Case No: ZC14C00315). I am not a party to the proceedings, however, I have followed the case quite closely and as a concerned international citizen, I would like to formalise my objections to her judgement in the prescribed manner. Although criticism might be directed at public bodies charged with a statutory responsibility for the education and protection of children and the investigation of crime, as a senior High Court Judge, Mrs Justice Pauffley assigned to this case had an over-arching duty to apply the law and do justice to the parties involved. The evidence suggests that Judge Pauffley demonstrably failed to do so.

The reasons for this assessment are as follows:-

(a) Judge Pauffley demonstrated partisanship and bias in the way she controlled proceedings:

Judge Pauffley did not ensure “equality of arms” from the parties concerned, insofar as throughout, the mother did not appear and was not permitted representation by her ‘McKenzie Friend’. The latter was a highly unusual decision by the Judge, who on previous occasions, has allowed a McKenzie Friend to be present in the court as a representative of the party concerned. It is my understanding that permission for a McKenzie Friend to be present in the court is at the discretion of the Judge, but in this case, the Judge gave no explanation for ordering the McKenzie Friend (Ms. Belinda McKenzie) out of the court, and in doing so, left the mother with absolutely no representation at all.

Furthermore, Judge Pauffley refused to allow the chosen mother’s representative even to attend to witness proceedings.

In taking these actions, Judge Pauffley allowed the remaining parties to the case to be represented – it is reported – by some sixteen legal personnel, without the mother having any.

This in itself undoubtedly breached the rules of natural justice and equality of treatment.

Furthermore, for Judge Pauffley to state that “It has made little difference that Ms Draper has been absent” is manifestly untrue, biased and unjust.

(b) The whole tenor of her published judgement and conclusions far exceeds the evidence on which she claims to base it. Judge Pauffley states:

“Everything of importance on all sides of the dispute has been considered so as to enable me to arrive at authoritative findings.”

This is demonstrably untrue, as at the very least, the children’s disclosures of forced participation in highly organised, ritualistic paedophile activity involving alleged perpetrators in significant positions of power and authority, including in government Children’s Services, were not subject to rigorous, independent investigation by the relevant specialist UK police squad.

Nor was an expert with suitable qualifications and/or expertise sought to assist in such a complex, sensitive case, for example, Dr. Valerie Sinason. Dr. Vinason has significant expertise in cases of organised and ritualised child sexual abuse cases and would have been in a preeminant position to offer expert professional opinion on the degree to which the details of the children’s disclosures match those of other child-victims of ritualised and organised child sexual abuse, as well as on the behaviour of the children, such as their apparent lack of emotion when recounting their alleged experiences. Dr. Vinason is the Director of a clinic that specialises in Dissociative Disorders. Had the Judge consulted with experts in this field, she would have discovered that the demeanour of the children is entirely consistent with child-victims of organised, ritualised child sexual abuse, and not as she stated, evidence that the children “fabricated” or were “coached” into describing their ordeal.

At no stage does it appear that the children’s initial disclosures were investigated with any credibility or rigour. For example, none of the locations identified by the children were sealed off as potential crime scenes to search for, let alone secure any forensic evidence corroborating the children’s disclosures. Given the seriousness of the allegations, including serious sexual and physical assaults, trafficking and murder, these measures should have been undertaken at a minimum, for the very least as a precaution. That this, amongst the many other alleged inadequacies of the police investigation, was not done indicates that the Judge’s statement that “Everything of importance on all sides of the dispute has been considered so as to enable me to arrive at authoritative findings” is manifestly untrue.

Furthermore, it appears that, with the exception of their father, the alleged perpetrators as identified by the children in their initial disclosures and initial police interviews were not interviewed formally at any stage. Furthermore, the children’s detailed descriptions of the alleged perpetrators distinguishing features on their private body parts were likewise not subject to forensic investigation. Timely investigation into these matters would have provided corroboration, or not, of the children’s disclosures. The failure to pursue this line of enquiry as part of a police investigation is stunning in its absence. It also highlights the fact that Judge Pauffley’s statement that “everything of importance on all sides of this dispute has been considered” to, once again, be proven manifestly and demonstrably untrue.

The Judge’s conclusions far exceed the evidence on which she claims to base it also in relation to the quality of the parenting provided by the mother and father and is quite contrary to the evidence. The judgement is clearly slanted against the mother and in favour of the father. As such it demonstrates unjustified bias. This is based on the following:

Previous court judgements had confirmed the mother to be good and safe.

The father had a track record of violence, including at least one “non-molestation order” and numerous police call-outs for domestic violence.

Yet Judge Pauffley concludes “on a balance of probability” quite the opposite, ignoring previous evidence indicating the mother to be good and safe, and ignoring evidence indicating the father’s alleged violence.

(c) In publishing her seven conclusions in para. 165 of her judgement, she has exceeded her brief and competence by making assertions on criminal matters without being constrained by criminal rules of proof and evidence.

As noted previously, the criminal investigation was demonstrably flawed and failed to follow the basic activities required for criminal investigations into allegations of child abuse, let alone established protocols and procedures established specifically for dealing with complex cases of child abuse.

As a Judicial Review has been submitted regarding the premature closure of the initial police investigation, including its many inadequacies, Judge Pauffley may have severely undermined on-going investigations.

(d) Judge Pauffley demonstrated bias and poor judgement by dismissing entirely and rejecting all the videoed witness statements by the children as unreliable.

This includes the disclosures made by the children informally as well as the initial police interviews. “Evidence of first disclosure” is, under ‘normal’ circumstances, extremely strong evidence, and for it to be discounted so dismissively indicates a level of bias that is unacceptable for a Judge in any position of such authority, let alone in matters of such seriousness.

It is somewhat paradoxical that she then chose to accept the children’s so-called ‘retraction’ as reliable.

Many professionals and research papers in the field of child sexual abuse are aware that children’s retractions of disclosures of child sexual abuse are common. This was duly noted by the expert witness, pediatrician (Dr. Hodes) who performed the examinations of the children. That this fact was not acknowledged nor appreciated by the Judge, coupled with her discrediting of the aforementioned expert witnesses’ evidence (and character) indicating that the children had suffered sexual abuse and exhibited symptoms of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), demonstrates an unfathomable level of bias.

Furthermore, Judge Pauffley was apparently unwilling to take evidence from the children directly. This defies all logic and certainly defies international best practice in matters of alleged child maltreatment.

Judge Pauffley’s dismissing of the children’s initial disclosures as “fantasy”, she states “I am able to state with complete conviction that none of the allegations are true.”

This demonstrates a failure to take into account the plethora of documented evidence relating to ritualised sexual abuse of children, much of which refers to rituals described in detail by the children, such as the drinking of sacrificed babies’ blood (e.g.,see https://ritualabuse.us/index.php?s=baby+blood for many pages of documents related to this aspect of rituals). That the Judge clearly did not undertake this research herself (which is freely and widely available) or call a relevant expert witness, such as Dr, Valerie Sinason, but simply decided apparently in her own mind that the descriptions were fantastical contradicts her statement that she has taken into account “Everything of importance” to make her “authoritative statement”.

(e) Judge Pauffley’s condemnation of members of the international community who have been concerned about the welfare of the two children involved, particularly in the context of an alleged “real-time” cover-up of organised child sexual abuse, as ‘foolish, evil and/or perverted’ contravenes all professional standards.

The judge has effectively vilified members of the international community who have responded to the presentation of a plethora of evidence alleging a police, government and judicial cover-up of high-level, organised, ritualistic child sexual abuse and the victimisation of the whistle-blowers. The initial allegations of the children are not “fantastical”, they are in fact, presented every day in your newspapers. Here are but a few recent newspaper headlines:

“Scotland Yard being investigated over explosive claims it covered up child sexual abuse by senior politicians”:

All of this material underscores the reason the UK has established an Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse. The Inquiry at this stage, will focus on historical cases, but the public is aware that the corruption and cover-ups that surround cases of high-level organised child sexual abuse did not end with the deaths of Jimmy Savile, Cyril Smith or Leon Brittan (to name a few). Moreover, the public are now educated in relation to the modus operandi of such cover-ups, which include but are not limited to:

the attempt to discredit the victims and/or those who are supporting them, including expert witnesses,

the removal of child-victims from a protective care-giver making the victims extremely vulnerable (often resulting in fear-based retractions of the victims),

threats of serious harm or death to child-victims or their loved ones if they disclose or refuse to retract their disclosures,

the intimidation of witnesses and activists who can support the case,

the attempted or successful destruction of evidence,

the failure to interview key witnesses who can corroborate the allegations,

the pursuit of the whistle-blowers on spurious grounds rather than investigating the allegations that have been made …

It is noteworthy that all of the above appear to present in the present case, allegedly. And it is for these reasons that members of the international community, in their millions, wanted to be kept informed of the fate of the two children concerned: to ensure that they were not going to be subjected to the same kinds of corrupt, criminal behaviour that so many other victims of similar crimes were subjected to before them. In contrast to being “evil” or “foolish”, this is the behaviour of moral, upstanding, educated, and vigilant citizens. For the Judge to publicly denounce them all as evil, foolish or perverted is without question a violation of her most basic oath, and that alone should be cause for her to be disciplined.

Indeed, it is the responsibility of the community to protect children from abuse in all its forms, without fear or favour, and this includes when it is allegedly being committed by those very institutions designed to protect them. Therefore, for Judge Pauffley to publicly vilify members of the community who are acting with a social and moral conscience is particularly egregious and it certainly brings The Court into disrepute. The Judge’s behaviour and public statements in this area alone indicate a clear and irrefutable breach of her oath: Not to demonstrate ill will to any.

I write therefore in request that Judge Pauffley’s ruling be overturned, that Judge Pauffley be disciplined accordingly for her many breaches of dereliction of duty and professional misconduct in this case, and to request that this case be independently, transparently and rigorously investigated as an urgent priority, and with the authority, integrity and purposefulness that it warrants.